I'm going to point out to you that "enemy combatants" who are NOT US citizens are not afforded constitutional protections when they are on foreign soil. It is the height of arrogance to think that US law applies OUTSIDE the sovereign territory of the USA. So you cannot have it both ways, either we are required to enforce our constitution *everywhere* or there are limits to whom and where it applies.
Except, there are legal protections in place for whistleblowers.
Despite your claims otherwise, Snowden did not take the prescribed steps for wistleblowers but took the short cut of breaking the law. He still had legal options that didn't involve breaking the law. If he didn't understand what those options where, that's not a good enough reason to just dump classified information into the hands of the press.
Geeze you people.. He's a US citizen in the eyes of the law, they just revoked his passport because they want him arrested. That's not taking away his citizenship status. Some other country might offer him citizenship and he can denounce his US citizenship, but he would be tried as a US citizen because he was one when the alleged crimes where done.
Really? You've *seen* this happen before? (and not on TV, in real life)
As I understand this, legally they have to disclose all evidence they have to the defense period. So if they have classified evidence, they have to let the defense have it. Yes, they can have the trial in a closed environment and seal the transcripts, but this is not unfair.
Do try to think this though. GITMO is the result of not having law in place to deal with combatants which are not agents of another state. How do you hold POW's when there is no organized army you are fighting? GITMO was the lesser of multiple evil choices.
But, GITMO is not a reason Snowden won't get a fair trial. It exists for totally unrelated reasons and would have nothing to do with a criminal prosecution of Snowden.
You should read further, but alas... BBC stories are not the way to determine right or wrong. GITMO is *not* a good thing, just the least evil of the available options. But wrapping this back to where we started..
So how does this situation have anything to do with how Snowden would be treated? Snowden would be tried in federal court where the burden of proof would be on the prosecution. He would NOT be detained in GITMO with or without trial. Totally different situation.
So the next guy who gets the BBC to write glowing things about him gets out too? Great. So the BBC is now in charge of US forigen policy, Um, No.
You don't know, I don't know, what the whole story here. GITMO is a *bad* solution to a problem that only has bad solutions and worse solutions. Like I've said before, at least two administrations have struggled to solve this problem, with no final resolution being obvious. Sorry, sometimes there is just no answer that will please everybody (including the BBC).
But, my point is that this is NOT a reason to believe that Snowden would be mistreated or not given a fair trial. The two situations are not related.
Look, Snowden broke the law, plain and simple. Would he be convicted if he came home? Yep. But that is NOT proof that the system is rigged or that he would not be afforded a fair trial. Now, if he turned up dead with a CIA operative running away, you *might* have a small cause for concern. As it stands, you are simply postulating that he'd not get a fair trial because you don't like what the obvious outcome would be. He had other options, but he didn't take them. This guy broke the law by all appearances. Take it to court.
Look, GITMO is a *bad* situation with solutions that are only worse. Remember these guys are effectively POW's by international law, but it's not the Saudi's we are at war with so to where is he returned? If the Saudi's don't want him and the place he was picked up doesn't want him what do you do? Dump him in the middle of the Ocean? The BBC and Wikipedia are not authoritative sources of why this guy is where he is. No, I don't have any better answers, but two separate administrations have tried to deal with this legal limbo for the detainees. to no avail. Apparently there are no easy answers.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Because the previous whistleblowers such as William Binney and Thomas Drake were treated unfairly, and they agreed with Snowden's approach based on their own experiences.
Of the two you cite, only Drake was actually convicted and was given probation for a minor offense to which he plead guilty. Binney was investigated, but not charged.
So, if Snowden is really a whistleblower, the chances of even jail time is pretty low... Only, Snowden really *isn't* a wistleblower by legal definition. He has knowingly disclosed classified information to unauthorized people. Which s entirely different than what either Drake or Binney actually did.
Ok.. I'll bite.. WHO is being detained in GITMO w/o charges?
BTW, GITMO is the product of some very strange international law and the nature of the conflict we find ourselves in. I don't like it, but given the situation, I don't see where there is another choice that makes sense. What do you do with enemy combatants you capture during war? Do you just shoot them? Uh, no. Do you just let them go? Uh, no, can't do that either. So what do you do? You hold them under the Geneva Convention.
Do you see some other viable solution? Because if you do, we need to discuss it, because even Obama, who ran on closing GITMO couldn't figure this one out.
I see what's going on here: You apparently trust the US government 100% to be honest, fair, and to honor the Constitutional rights of her citizens, for whatever reason.
No, not always, but you *always* have redress in court when they don't.
There is a presumption of you being innocent when accused of a crime. That's how the justice system in this country works (even under the UCMJ this is true). The system doesn't always get it right, but we let a hole lot more people walk free who actually did it than we wrongly punish for things they didn't do. So is the system fair? Usually it is. Would it be fair to Snowden? Absolutely it would, especially in that case. Way too many people would be watching for the government to try anything.
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise.
I think there are STRONG evidence that this wouldn't be a fair trial.
Care to back that up with some *evidence* ?
And as I told another poster, I'm not accepting recent happenings under differing legal systems as evidence that Snowden wouldn't have a fair trial.
GITMO is a special case and ONLY involves enemy combatants detained on non-US soil. There has never been any citizens of the USA detained in GITMO, once their identity has been established. So this is totally different issue that is covered by military laws, which is different and would not apply to Snowden, nor would he be jailed in this location.
Manning was IN the military so he was tried under a different system. Again, Snowden would not be tried under this system. But even so, Manning was NOT mistreated and was afforded a trial with rules of evidence, representation and many of the same protections you are entitled when you are not being tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
BOTH of your examples where under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would not be used for Snowden. Therefore I contend that your fears are NOT valid.
So what specifically do you figure would happen to Snowden? He faces a trial in federal criminal court and not a military tribunal.
None of which will happen under the current government.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated? All they've done so far is to issue a warrant for his arrest and invalidated his passport, which is totally legal and within the bounds of the law.
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise. He's lucky that it's the USA that's after him, because other countries would have killed him a long time ago. (And don't fool yourself, if the USA wanted him dead sans a trial, he'd be room temperature.)
So stop with this "He's being unfairly treated" nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth.
Because those making the leaks need to flee the country and take asylum elsewhere, or end up imprisoned for years.
It's not about the presence of the leaks, it's about the way that the government has persecuted the leakers, and the members of the press they went to.
First of all... IF Snowden is a LEAKER then, by definition and by virtue of the paperwork he signed the government has the right (if not the obligation) to haul his butt into criminal court and store his living carcass in jail for long periods of time. If convicted of treason, the government can convert his living carcass into a dead one to be stored below ground until the here after arrives.
So watch your choice of words... It's "Whistle Blower!" not "leaker" or the argument is lost before you start.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to point out to you that "enemy combatants" who are NOT US citizens are not afforded constitutional protections when they are on foreign soil. It is the height of arrogance to think that US law applies OUTSIDE the sovereign territory of the USA. So you cannot have it both ways, either we are required to enforce our constitution *everywhere* or there are limits to whom and where it applies.
Except, there are legal protections in place for whistleblowers.
Despite your claims otherwise, Snowden did not take the prescribed steps for wistleblowers but took the short cut of breaking the law. He still had legal options that didn't involve breaking the law. If he didn't understand what those options where, that's not a good enough reason to just dump classified information into the hands of the press.
Geeze you people.. He's a US citizen in the eyes of the law, they just revoked his passport because they want him arrested. That's not taking away his citizenship status. Some other country might offer him citizenship and he can denounce his US citizenship, but he would be tried as a US citizen because he was one when the alleged crimes where done.
Really? You've *seen* this happen before? (and not on TV, in real life)
As I understand this, legally they have to disclose all evidence they have to the defense period. So if they have classified evidence, they have to let the defense have it. Yes, they can have the trial in a closed environment and seal the transcripts, but this is not unfair.
Read the rest of the statement, we are in agreement.
All is well with the world.
In other news, Russian investors take over SCO Unix, and Microsoft *still* has no comment.
Do try to think this though. GITMO is the result of not having law in place to deal with combatants which are not agents of another state. How do you hold POW's when there is no organized army you are fighting? GITMO was the lesser of multiple evil choices.
But, GITMO is not a reason Snowden won't get a fair trial. It exists for totally unrelated reasons and would have nothing to do with a criminal prosecution of Snowden.
You should read further, but alas... BBC stories are not the way to determine right or wrong. GITMO is *not* a good thing, just the least evil of the available options. But wrapping this back to where we started..
So how does this situation have anything to do with how Snowden would be treated? Snowden would be tried in federal court where the burden of proof would be on the prosecution. He would NOT be detained in GITMO with or without trial. Totally different situation.
So the next guy who gets the BBC to write glowing things about him gets out too? Great. So the BBC is now in charge of US forigen policy, Um, No.
You don't know, I don't know, what the whole story here. GITMO is a *bad* solution to a problem that only has bad solutions and worse solutions. Like I've said before, at least two administrations have struggled to solve this problem, with no final resolution being obvious. Sorry, sometimes there is just no answer that will please everybody (including the BBC).
But, my point is that this is NOT a reason to believe that Snowden would be mistreated or not given a fair trial. The two situations are not related.
LOL, true, but I'd still rather have Bush. BTW, I was trying to allude to Hillary...
Look, Snowden broke the law, plain and simple. Would he be convicted if he came home? Yep. But that is NOT proof that the system is rigged or that he would not be afforded a fair trial. Now, if he turned up dead with a CIA operative running away, you *might* have a small cause for concern. As it stands, you are simply postulating that he'd not get a fair trial because you don't like what the obvious outcome would be. He had other options, but he didn't take them. This guy broke the law by all appearances. Take it to court.
Ok, that's what the BBC is saying...
Look, GITMO is a *bad* situation with solutions that are only worse. Remember these guys are effectively POW's by international law, but it's not the Saudi's we are at war with so to where is he returned? If the Saudi's don't want him and the place he was picked up doesn't want him what do you do? Dump him in the middle of the Ocean? The BBC and Wikipedia are not authoritative sources of why this guy is where he is. No, I don't have any better answers, but two separate administrations have tried to deal with this legal limbo for the detainees. to no avail. Apparently there are no easy answers.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Extrapolation from prior findings?
Which prior findings are you referring to?
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Because the previous whistleblowers such as William Binney and Thomas Drake were treated unfairly, and they agreed with Snowden's approach based on their own experiences.
Of the two you cite, only Drake was actually convicted and was given probation for a minor offense to which he plead guilty. Binney was investigated, but not charged.
So, if Snowden is really a whistleblower, the chances of even jail time is pretty low... Only, Snowden really *isn't* a wistleblower by legal definition. He has knowingly disclosed classified information to unauthorized people. Which s entirely different than what either Drake or Binney actually did.
Ok.. I'll bite.. WHO is being detained in GITMO w/o charges?
BTW, GITMO is the product of some very strange international law and the nature of the conflict we find ourselves in. I don't like it, but given the situation, I don't see where there is another choice that makes sense. What do you do with enemy combatants you capture during war? Do you just shoot them? Uh, no. Do you just let them go? Uh, no, can't do that either. So what do you do? You hold them under the Geneva Convention.
Do you see some other viable solution? Because if you do, we need to discuss it, because even Obama, who ran on closing GITMO couldn't figure this one out.
I see what's going on here: You apparently trust the US government 100% to be honest, fair, and to honor the Constitutional rights of her citizens, for whatever reason.
No, not always, but you *always* have redress in court when they don't.
There is a presumption of you being innocent when accused of a crime. That's how the justice system in this country works (even under the UCMJ this is true). The system doesn't always get it right, but we let a hole lot more people walk free who actually did it than we wrongly punish for things they didn't do. So is the system fair? Usually it is. Would it be fair to Snowden? Absolutely it would, especially in that case. Way too many people would be watching for the government to try anything.
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise.
I think there are STRONG evidence that this wouldn't be a fair trial.
Care to back that up with some *evidence* ?
And as I told another poster, I'm not accepting recent happenings under differing legal systems as evidence that Snowden wouldn't have a fair trial.
GITMO is a special case and ONLY involves enemy combatants detained on non-US soil. There has never been any citizens of the USA detained in GITMO, once their identity has been established. So this is totally different issue that is covered by military laws, which is different and would not apply to Snowden, nor would he be jailed in this location.
Manning was IN the military so he was tried under a different system. Again, Snowden would not be tried under this system. But even so, Manning was NOT mistreated and was afforded a trial with rules of evidence, representation and many of the same protections you are entitled when you are not being tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
BOTH of your examples where under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would not be used for Snowden. Therefore I contend that your fears are NOT valid.
So what specifically do you figure would happen to Snowden? He faces a trial in federal criminal court and not a military tribunal.
Reporters Without Borders says that they made changes to their methodology. Suddenly the U.S. drops in rank. I think those two facts are related.
What's that old saying... "Figures never lie, but lairs figure" or is it, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"
Thank God we God rid of that evil Bush and now we have a President who respects the Constitution !!!
What difference does it make now?
Obama who? Berry won his *last* election in 2012, what's he going to run for now? Dog Catcher?
You won't be talking about Mechelle? Heaven help us if you are..
but this is just a rank based on a number calculated according to an arbitrary weighting of factors..
Isn't that how "Stack Ranking" of employees would be defined?
None of which will happen under the current government.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated? All they've done so far is to issue a warrant for his arrest and invalidated his passport, which is totally legal and within the bounds of the law.
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise. He's lucky that it's the USA that's after him, because other countries would have killed him a long time ago. (And don't fool yourself, if the USA wanted him dead sans a trial, he'd be room temperature.)
So stop with this "He's being unfairly treated" nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth.
Because those making the leaks need to flee the country and take asylum elsewhere, or end up imprisoned for years.
It's not about the presence of the leaks, it's about the way that the government has persecuted the leakers, and the members of the press they went to.
First of all... IF Snowden is a LEAKER then, by definition and by virtue of the paperwork he signed the government has the right (if not the obligation) to haul his butt into criminal court and store his living carcass in jail for long periods of time. If convicted of treason, the government can convert his living carcass into a dead one to be stored below ground until the here after arrives.
So watch your choice of words... It's "Whistle Blower!" not "leaker" or the argument is lost before you start.
I'm sorry NOW!